After reading a letter in my local paper I had to respond!
Heres "her" letter, followed by mine (Im sure theyll edit it).
[b]Hers[/b]
This is in response to a July 25 letter from V**** L*****. If the Second Amendment is considered fairly, it quite clearly does not give individuals the right to bear arms without good reason. The amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''
The first clause is the cause part of a cause-and-effect type of sentence. Keeping this in mind, you can see that the intent of this is (1) people should bear arms in order to defend their country and (2) people bearing arms should join or form an organized militia (which the "militia of the United States'' is not).
When this amendment was written, missiles and airplanes did not exist. In order for a country to be attacked, enemy soldiers had to be physically present in that country. Thus, having the populace armed did help defend a nation. However, technology has improved to the point where if another country wants to attack the United States, having civilians with shotguns in their homes is not going be of much use.
Many Americans, myself among them, do not object to police officers or Army soldiers carrying weapons. In my case, I don't object because these people are part of organizations that have clear rules and codes of conduct, and because these people are essential to our national security. A thoughtful interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it clear that such organizations and their members are the ones who the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
[b]Mine[/B]
This is in response to a August 1 letter from K***** B******. After reading Mrs. B******* comments regarding that she doesnt "...object to police officers and Army soldiers carrying weapons" as they have "clear rules and codes of conduct", I am reminded of a disturbingly similar statement made in 1935. "Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as them having guns doesnt serve the state." Would Mrs. ******* and likeminded individuals care to take a guess as to who made this statement? Heinrich Himmler, Head of the Gestapo. Arguements presented by Mrs. B***** elude to a misconception - the need for arms prior to an established military was required to defend this nation. Correction Mrs. *******, the English did not invade the Colonies, they WERE our government. The concept of the 2nd Amendment is clearly discussed by one of the brave signers of our Constitution in 1787 - Thomas Jefferson, 1776, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, it is about freedom, which we all so dearly share. However, due to misinformation and political agendas, we fail to acknowledge that what we hold so close to our hearts is so often taken for granted.

Originally Posted By HKgnnr:.........
Correction Mrs. *******, the English did not invade the Colonies, they WERE our government. The concept of the 2nd Amendment is clearly discussed by one of the brave signers of our Constitution in 1787 - Thomas Jefferson, 1776, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, it is about freedom, which we all so dearly share. However, due to misinformation and political agendas, we fail to acknowledge that what we hold so close to our hearts is so often taken for granted.

" the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny " J. Madison<

Ya done good!
You could also add that the language in the 2nd Amendment is exactly the same as in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th. "the Rights of the People" I don't see her questioning the validity of those "individual" rights.
I have many friends that have been or are currently serving in the National Guard or Reserves. Absolutely none of them get to "keep or bear" any of the armament issued by the Government. If they wanted a firearm, they had to go out and buy them in a store just like the rest of us. The N.G. was not even around until late in the 19th century. So it was not even a factor during the authoring of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.